[678] Bhikkhus, if, while those bhikkhus are deciding that legal issue (adhikaraṇa), there should be present there a bhikkhu who is a speaker on the Dhamma (dhammakathika), but to whom neither the sutta has been handed down nor the analysis of the sutta (suttavibhaṅga), and he, not discerning the meaning, rejects the meaning under the shadow of the letter — then those bhikkhus should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhu:
"Let the venerable ones hear me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so is a speaker on the Dhamma, but to him neither the sutta has been handed down nor the analysis of the sutta; not discerning the meaning, he rejects the meaning under the shadow of the letter. If it seems fitting to the venerable ones, let us remove the bhikkhu named so-and-so, and let the rest of us settle this legal issue."
Bhikkhus, if those bhikkhus, having removed that bhikkhu, are able to settle that legal issue, this, bhikkhus, is called a legal issue that has been settled. Settled by what? By resolution in the presence (sammukhāvinaya). And what is there in that resolution in the presence? The presence of the Dhamma, the presence of the Vinaya, the presence of the persons … If, bhikkhus, when a legal issue has been settled in this way, one who took part in it reopens it, the reopening is an offense of pācittiya.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.